Is ‘Crash’ the worst Oscar winner ever?

One of the most popular ongoing Oscar games is to identify the absolute worst choices ever made for Best Picture over the 86 year history of the awards. Some takers will always choose to name what they feel are the worst films to win, while others prefer to cite the films that won over far more deserving winners. On the latter front a popular choice will always be 1941’s How Green Was My Valley, a John Ford masterwork that had the temerity to top the film that many consider the greatest of all-time: Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane. Yet, How Green Was My Valley would be a legitimate winner practically any other year, so the strong indignation for 1941 seems misguided. It would be safe to contend that roughly half of the films named Best Picture over eight decades plus are unworthy of the ultimate designation for either of the two reasons, or a combination of both. Of the remaining half we could discount another 50% or so that are acceptable, but uninspired. That leaves us with maybe one-quarter of the actual selections that can be regarded as valid and worthy of the Oscar. Needless to say, the Academy Awards, by their very make-up rarely show the proper attention for foreign-language cinema, so even in the minority instance where they did get it right there is a significant asterisk next to the choices. Ironically enough the last time the Academy got it right was just a year ago, when the critically-venerated The Artist earned the top prize after nearly every critics’ organization worldwide made the same call. There are a number of other instances over the years where movie lover are nearly unanimous in their belief that justice was served: Lawrence of Arabia, All Quiet on the Western Front, No Country For Old Men, The Return of the King, West Side Story, Midnight Cowboy, The Godfather, The Godfather Part 2 among them.

But more often than not the wrong film won. In many instance the choice made was not only the wrong film, but a film that had no business even being considered. Some of the winners are deplorable. Everyone has different ideas as to what the worst winners are, and I have offered up my own list of what I feel are the most egregious Best Picture winners. I will reserve specific analysis and commentary for possible employment in the comment section of this post.

I urge all readers to add their own lists of the ’20 Worst Oscar winners’ to the comment section.

Like this:

Related

92 Responses

I like Crash ok, not a masterpiece, but a movie that kept me entertained and then forgotten in time, not a worthy best picture winner, but it wouldn’t make my list of the worst films of the year either, of course, many people just want to enforce that Crash is a bad movie just because of the hyperbole of winning best picture at the Oscars.
Any way, here are some others I really like: Rainman, Rocky and Million Dollar Baby (gee, I love those two a lot) and Titanic is boring and long, but maybe a technical achievement, did it deserve best picture? No, but hell, I’m sure there are worst films out there that won the award. Cheers. If I had to choose a worst best picture winner, it would be ‘The Departed’.
You know what would be fun? Listing the worst nominees to best picture, the past few years have: The Help, Extremely Loud, Les Misérables (sorry guize), The Blind Side, Sideways…
Of course this is all my opinion, just putting it out there.

There you are, the lowest of the fucking low.
1. Mrs Miniver – not even that shit film beats this
2. Driving Miss Daisy
3. The Greatest Show on Earth
4. The Great Ziegfeld
5. Out of Africa
6. The Broadway Melody
7. A Beautiful Mind
8. Forrest Gump
9. Cimarron
10. My Fair Lady
11. Going My Way
12. Million Dollar Baby
13. Kramer Vs Kramer
14. Terms of Endearment
15. Rain Man
16. Cavalcade
17. Rocky
18. Chicago
19. Titanic
20. Dances With Wolves
21. Gentleman’s Agreement
22. Crash
23. Braveheart
24. Grand Hotel
25. Chariots of Fire
26. You Can’t Take it With You
27. The Sting
28. The Sound of Music
29. Around the World in 80 Days
30. The Life of Emile Zola

Sorry Sam, but in a contest between ‘How Green Was My Valley’ and ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ – IMHO, the latter wipes the floor with Ford’s excellent film. I’d put ‘Driving Miss Daisy (crazy)’ and ‘Titanic’ (not forgetting ‘Out of Africa’ and ‘Braveheart’) at or near the top of the range for the worst choices. I forgot about ‘Silence of the Lambs’.

As for Allen’s list above, most of those above should in no way have been in the running for ‘Best Picture’ but most have some redeeming values; production design, photography, a smart scene, music, a performance or two or are just plain entertaining at some level, an amusing diversion. Even ‘The Departed’ and the Coen’s ‘No Country For Old Men’ aren’t anywhere near the top best from those film-makers but have superb passages and great directorial flair.

Unfortunately, there is way too much intellectualising when making up these lists. Some films are sheer fun and marvellously made – ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, would never have got through but ‘The Return of the King’ does, hmmm. I’d pluck two film off your list and four off Allen’s which just goes to show that every reader will have some variations and be able to make a case and the are no real absolutes.

1940: Rebecca
1943: Casablanca
1950: All About Eve
1960: The Apartment
1972: The Godfather
1974: The Godfather 2
1978: The Deer Hunter
1992: Unforgiven
2007: No Country For Old Men
2009: The Hurt Locker

Ha Maurizio, I was going to do a separate post for the best, though there would obviously be far less choices indeed. I stated (above) that 3/4 of the Oscar winners were undeserved. As to the other 1/4, let’s just say that any voting group is bound to get it right some of the time.

I will ONLY take you to task for one choice in this otherwise excellent list of worthy winners: UNFORGIVEN.

For me HOWARDS END, THE PLAYER, JFK and even A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT are greater films.

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a very good film, and many would agree with it’s selection (fair enough) but I would go with a few others that year. One is Joe Wright’s ATONEMENT.

I think three films are better than No Country in 2007, but it’s still one of the better selections by the Academy in terms of awarding Best Picture. I didn’t factor whether better movies were made in a particular year, just those that actually won when compared to other winners. I disagree with 1992, as I think Unforgiven is better than all those pictures you listed.

As far as 1940, I can hardly argue with you choosing REBECCA as it’s a Hitchcock masterpiece, and one of my favorite by the director. Hence, it’s a worthy winner. But that year, my top choice is Ford’s THE GRAPES OF WRATH.

Never understood the hatred for Crash but have speculated it has less to do with the film’s own demerits than with a backlash against a perceived conspiracy to deny Best Picture to the “rightful” winner for that year, Brokeback Mountain. While the circumstances differ, I can see Argo suffering a similar fate in the future.

My own bottom ten — with Cavalcade unseen …

Around the World in 80 Days
Cimarron
Gladiator
Chicago
My Fair Lady
Going My Way
Driving Miss Daisy (sorry!!!)
Terms of Endearment
An American in Paris
The Departed

Obviously Samuel, I like My Fair Lady and Chicago more than you, but I could never put An American in Paris as a bad winner, as it’s one of the greatest movie musicals of all-time, even if it did beat some great films, like STREETCAR. True about CRASH being hated for winning over BROKEBACK, but I still feel it was an exceedingly weak choice on it’s own. Understood on DAISY, a film that never flew at WitD.

Daisy doesn’t fly anywhere Sam. In the past month or two I’ve read about three articles similar to the one you posted here at Wonders. All three writers had Daisy as one of the worst best Picture winners ever. At this point it’s basic common knowledge that DMD is awful. It occupies the same infamous space in Oscar lore as Marisa Tomei, Crash, Rocky in 76, Citizen Kane losing etc.

Well you opened the floodgates Maurizio. It does fly everywhere except at WitD.

Check out the review composites yourself. I won’t bring the numbers in, I’ll just leave you to see them yourself. You call critical praise as “common knowledge.” I love the film, and have many teacherr friends who adore it as well. You read three articles? Fair enough. I’ve also read many that back my own sentiments.

*This is the easiest kind of film to dismiss, as it is sentimental. I like the term Joe used. It is a chamber drama and it seemed to spawn a series of films about relationships, set in the deep south…Fried Green Tomatoes, Steel Magnolias come to mind. To look at it in sociological terms, and to find fault with the premise is to miss the larger point. I think you said it perfectly there in another review of depth and insight. It’s a simple film about how an unlikely friendship can transcend generations, and stand as a testament to the human spirit.*

I actually remember part of that comment Frank. Thanks for posting it. At AWARDS DAILY over the past two months there have been legions of defenders and detractors of DRIVING MISS DAISY. As always there is no rule or general perception. There are lovers, haters and those in the middle. I mentioned WitD only because this site is heavily in the nay-sayer direction.

Maurizio, I am not denying that. However, the film received EXCELLENT reviews upon release, and was a favorite film on year-end lists in 1989. Obviously the thousands who voted for it loved it. I know there are those who are indifferent to it, but I love the film, and don’t consider it as a bad Academy choice. Am I denying that a good many people disagree with me? No. I am not. I acknowledge that. But I stand passionately behind my love for this film.

Fair enough Sam and I understand we all have different opinions on certain films. My main point though was that the disdain for DMD flew further than just WITD. A quick search on two pages of Google proved it. It is not just a few crackpots on this blog that find DMD one of the weaker Best Picture Winners… that opinion seems fairly common in 2012.

I was going to dispute some of your entries, which I consider either guilty pleasures or harmless-enough entertainments, but instead I’ll reserve my shock for one film:

Best Years of Our Lives? Among the worst?? I’m with Bobby on this (though I like Valley): Best Years is a superb movie, one of the greatest of all time. Even if it’s not your cup of tea you’ve got to acknowledge the stunning compositions and staging of Wyler & Toland. I also happen to find it intensely moving, but that’s more subjective I suppose – the technical craft/formal sophistication is undeniable! I would give a slight edge to It’s a Wonderful Life but then ’46 is an amazing year, one of the best in cinema, especially American.

As for the rest, other thoughts…

1. I consider Great Ziegfeld maybe the worst, at least that’s the one I least enjoyed watching (for all the Miniver hate, it provides an interesting sociological peek at the time: how Hollywood saw/recreated both middle-class Britain and contemporary events of the time).

2. You seem to have confused A Dangerous Method with A Beautiful Mind, or perhaps the Michelle Pfeiffer white teacher in inner city ’95 film Dangerous Minds, mostly notable for introducing Coolio’s “Gangsta’s Paradise” via its soundtrack (Pfeiffer even appeared in the video, overturning a chair as Coolio’s raps at her, a moment deftly parodied in the Weird Al video by an Amish woman in a bonnet).

3. Like Maurizio, I think I’ll have an easier time listing Oscar that were justified. So I’ll do so below.

Just to clear one thing up… my selections were not about most justified for a particular year. I just listed my top ten films the Academy has picked for Best Picture overall (in chronological order). Some of those should of probably lost their respective years, even if we keep it at just American movies.

Can’t agree more about Million Dollar Baby. A film that Roger Ebert called a masterpiece and the best of the year – it’s manipulative, poorly-acted (mainly Eastwood himself, along with the scenes with Jay Baruchel) and poorly-written crap. Especially the scenes with Hilary Swank’s family. They were complete caricatures. I also don’t get the love for The Departed, but I understand it was a career award for Scorsese.

I’d have been more satisfied had they denied Scorsese the award for THE DAPARTED (fucking him, yet again) and holding out to give it to him for one of the biggest surprises to ever come out of his career. I liked THE ARTIST alot, but I thought it was no match for HUGO (a film that proved that Scorsese could master ANY genre he set his scopes on).

Ok, the following are the Best Pictures I CAN get down with. Even if I would personally choose another film instead, these are in the top tier. Starred films are ones I could vote for myself – at least as “Best American/British Picture” which is pretty much what the award means anyway (a foreign-language film can only win if they don’t actually say anything in a foreign language haha).

I don’t think its a bad thing if the Academy exclusively made American films win (if one cares about the Oscars in the first place). After all it is an American award voted on by Americans. I’m sure other countries like France do the same thing most of the time as well. What hurts this argument is that they have let a bunch of British films win in the past (plus The Artist). This makes it look worse since the criteria is less American and more English language. Since no actual restrictions exist in terms of country, the fact that world cinema has been largely ignored because of such a meaningless factor (language) is silly.

The only one I, personally, would wrap you on the knuckles for, JOEL, is PLATOON. Nothing more than a procedural with biblical themes thread through it to make it seem like more than the absolute snore-fest it is, how it beat out the supremely better HANNAH AND HER SISTERS for the top two prizes (Picture and Director) still boggles my mind. I have hated PLatoon since I first saw it in theatres and every subsequent viewing I allowed it in hopes that it would grow on me.

I like Platoon. And maybe I see ’86 as a weakish year, hence its inclusion whereas something like How Green Was My Valley, which is probably in the same class but beat out Citizen Kane, doesn’t make my shortlist.

That said, Platoon is not even my favorite Oliver Stone movie…of 1986!

No Von Trier is in Oscar ballpark, he’s anathema to Oscar. Hence ignoring performances of all women post Emily Watson as it was so right for Sandra fucking Bullock to win in the year of Charlotte Gainsbourg.

The Oscars are over, thank Christ. Yet still we’re talking about them. Get me out of here!

I’m with you on Charlotte Gainsbourg – she was so unfairly overlooked everywhere, not just at the Oscars. Kirsten Dunst got all the accolades, but great as she was, it was Gainsbourg’s performance in MELANCHOLIA that most impressed me.

SAM-Fascinating post and a topic that always seems to come up when we head over to Allan’s ammeded Oscar thread.

I think it really comes down to personal tastes for many when the past is looked at and films that may have slipped through our fingers are finally discovered. However, the general practice to put a finger on a single work for every year and call it the BEST is really moronic and only finds validation when done for purely entertaining reasons (i.e. polls and prognostication). My view of the best will, most likely, differ from what someone else deems the same. My opinion, like that of everyone else here, is really a personal validation of what works for the individual. I will say, though, that there are the rare occasions where something so obvious, so great, titanic in it’s artistry and execution comes along and bowls us all over (though, that seems to be more and more rare these days).

CRASH is an interesting choice for the worst selection by the Academy of all time. The film isn’t the greatest winner ever. Actually, the film is quite monotonous, swelled at the head with it’s obvious “Importance”, but never comes off as so pompous and as self-aware that it’s trying to be great as films like TITANIC or RAIN MAN. I prefer to applaud films that, seemingly, come out from nowhere, go to the theatre expecting nothing, and then get overwhelmed by something completely special (THERE WILL BE BLOOD was just such a film after PT Andersons long hiatus, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE was a film I knew nothing about and was both pleasantly surprised from and deeply moved by).

1980’s ORDINARY PEOPLE was one of those little gems that popped out of nowhere. True, it’s not the masterpiece of the nominees (that declaration would have to go to Martin Scorsese’s RAGING BULL)… However, looking at ORDINARY PEOPLE now, the movie still holds up, is wonderfully scripted and directed and features some terrific performances by the cast (Timothy Hutton and Mary Tyler Moore-shedding her goodie-two-shoes TV persona to play a person far more cross and tyrannical). The problem with 1980 is that the film went into contention with a movie that was so gigantically embraced as the runaway masterpiece of the year that the backlash against PEOPLE has taken on almost hysterical proportions. In all honesty, Robert Redfords look at clinical depression , denial and suicide within the confines of upper-middle class suburban society should never have gotten the jeers and the hisses it recieved. Today, that wonderfully precise and intricately played film about human emotions is seen as garbage because it had the temerity of being the apple of Oscar’s eye. This is not the fault of ORDINARY PEOPLE. However, this is not the fault of many of the films that the Academy decides to throw a bouquet at in lieu of a better recieved or wildly popular films among fantatics of the art or fan-boys and girls or, even, the critics.

CHARIOTS OF FIRE, THE ARTIST, THE STING, THE APARTMENT, THE LAST EMPEROR, CHICAGO, IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, MARTY, MILLION DOLLAR BABY…

Ok, sure, they were NOT the best of the year by many peoples estimation. However, considering the films that they victored over were never gonna win the prize in the first place, these weren’t bad selections to live with. It’s when the Academy steam-rolls us underfoot for bone throwing to films that don’t even deserve the nomination, much less the win, that the suspect of the Academy must be taken into account.

TITANIC?????? This film was destroyed by many of the critics and, yet, the brains that preside over the Oscars felt they should honor the movie with 11 Oscars. RAIN MAN? The film is structurally unbalanced, a journey film with no logical resolution and a clear cut example of a melodrama that’s only goal is to make us cry even though it’s hit none of the prerequisite marks to make us do so. The Academy felt, however, that the critics and the public (at least, the public that embraces good film), to award it the prizes for BEST PICTURE, DIRECTOR, ACTOR and SCREENPLAY of the year.

It’s the ones that are so glaringly bad, and still victor, that really boil my ball sack. To bitch over something like ORDINARY PEOPLE, when we know how the Academy thinks, is like singing to an audience that is deaf. At least ORDINARY PEOPLE and GANDHI and CHARIOTS OF FIRE are good movies.

1. TITANIC
2. RAIN MAN
3. ROCKY
4. MRS. MINIVER
5. AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
8. OLIVER! (I like this film, as a film, but nowhere near 2001 or ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST-two films that swung to change the medium aside from being supremely perfect)
9. GIGI
10. KRAMER VS KRAMER

That was quite a superb and concise summation by Dennis of ‘Ordinary People’. I love ‘Raging Bull’ technically and intellectually and consider it among Scorcese’s three greatest films, but it failed to make me feel the tragedy of a sociopath, which strangely even Hitch achieved with ‘Psycho’. A great film, yes, resolutely so but one never to make the grade with it’s raw emotions. And lest we not forget, 1980 was also the year of ‘The Elephant Man’ and ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, though the latter would never have got in the running due to the genre it belonged to..

What are you talking about? Sleeping over what? I have watched this film no less than five times in my life, including TWICE at Film Forum festivals. So now I am accused of “sleeping” when I don’t give a film high marks. And as far as “being the only person in the world who doesn’t like a particular film” I’d suggest you look in the mirror. That has applied to you many man many times! I loved Friedhofer’s score. That’s it.

With about 90% of critical adulation I’d say I am far far far from the only person who loved DAISY.

I believe the success of Best Years, at the time of its win, relied heavily on the prevailing cultural sentiment of the time — post-war stuff — and for that reason has developed a grandiose reputation. In a way it’s reception could be compared to that of Mrs. Miniver. On the other hand, I still think it’s a strong film even when one discounts the “button-pushing” elements that propelled it to its initial success.

Pierre, that’s more than fair enough. I did indeed find BEST YEARS dated and very conventional. It surveyed the landscape, but never probed beneath the surface. I also though Russell was an undeserved winner for Best Supporting Actor, which was in part a sympathy vote for his disibility. The winner that year should easily have been Claude Rains for NOTORIOUS, methinks.

Well, it is too bad that Rains never received an Oscar. But then we all know that the most p performance doesn’t always win. At least Rains lost to a very good performance that was quite moving — certainly more deserving than some I could name offhand.

In no particular order but here are my top ten choices for the worst!
The Greatest Show on Earth
Mrs. Miniver
How Green Was My Valley
Around The World in 80 Days
The Sound of Music (pure pulp trash)
Ordinary People
Out of Africa
Titanic (it gets worst with each viewing)
The Great Ziegfield
You Can’t Take it With You (I recently tried sitting through and just could not do it)

A couple of thoughts: ROCKY is inoffensive but compared to the others films nominated that year, it was a embarrassment that it won. I feel the same way about CRASH.

Worse and worse every time I see it played on cable (I usually keep surfing for repeats of the awful FINDING BIGFOOT as it’s not half as bad or hysterically funny as this lame boat film). TITANIC is complete with an awful script, preposterous plotting-honestly, who would chase another guy around a sinking boat because he fucked his girlfriend when emminent death is at hand for everyone????), BILLY ZANE, over-done music, one of the most annoying theme songs to ever win an Oscar, pretentious direction, BILLY ZANE, over-the-top melodramatics????? Oh, and did I mention BILLY ZANE????

That it aspired to be so much more than what it turned out to be makes it even harder to swallow.

JOHN-I wouldn’t attack ORDINARY PEOPLE for what amounts more to bad timing than it actually being a bad picture. Had RAGING BULL or THE ELEPHANT MAN NOT been in the running for BEST PICTURE I doubt that anyone would be calling foul over the love that the Redford film received. I recently saw ORDINARY PEOPLE on TCM (part of it’s “30 Days of Oscar” marathon) and it’s holds up very well. The other thing that caught me off guard about the film is that I had no less than 4 other people in the room with me (my office at work) while the picture was being shown and every one of them admitted that they thought it was an effective, emotionally resonant film harboring some great turns by the actors (particualrly Hutton and Tyler Moore), subtle direction by Redford, and a searing screenplay by Alvin Sargeant.

Frankly, I love ORDINARY PEOPLE and have loved it ever since I saw it in 1980.

I, for one, am glad Kate decided to get greedy and make Leo freeze to death. Had she been good-hearted, he may have lived and that, in all horror, would have led to an impending, and just as awful, sequel….

John—Thanks for playing. I do agree with you on several, though as you know I love HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY and THE SOUND OF MUSIC far too much to include them on such a list. I like AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS, particular Victor Young’s utterly magnificent score. but agree it was not the best. I love ORDINARY PEOPLE. But I am with you for the majority there.

Dennis –TITANIC is pure trash that looks good on the surface when first viewed, but does not hold up. As for ORDINARY PEOPLE, maybe I just resent that it beat out RAGING BULL. I just find it annoying, but that just me.

Sam – I know of your love for HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY but that is another film I cannot just warm up to. And as for THE SOUND OF MUSIC, well I said above what I think so I will not go there.

Titanic is an assault on the senses. After seeing it I almost felt like I’d been the victim of domestic violence except for the fact that it happened in a theater and not at home so I didn’t report it to the authorities.

I didn’t judge my picks based on anything other than the quality of the movie; I did not pick any titles because of what other movies they beat for the top prize. For my money, the worst are (from worst to least worst):

1) The Greatest Show on Earth (only James Stewart makes an impression in this extra-bland DeMille film)
2) Around the World in 80 Days (fine score, but even the cameos can’t save this bloodless affair)
3) The Great Ziegfield (apparently, having the word “great” in the title is a no-no; histrionic and forgettable)
4) Braveheart (easily the ugliest Best Picture winner in recent memory; completely ammoral and it steals its best bits–the battles–from CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT)
5) Slumdog Millionaire (a big “what the Hell?” greeted me upon seeing this supremely brainless story of love and intrigue; I’d watch it again to find out if I missed something, but I just can’t bring myself to do it)
6) Tom Jones (Why’d they have to “60s movie” this story up? It’s an embarrassment.)
7) My Fair Lady (I sort of like Rex Harrison in it, but Audrey Hepburn is totally miscast and there’s something about the look of it that’s stagy and phony at all the wrong times)
8) A Beautiful Mind (If Jennifer Connelly were not so good in it, it’d be completely unwatchable; one of those movies that hinges on a surprise, and if you were able to guess it, then the whole thing seems rather pointless)
9) Gigi (another musical that never really floated my boat, though I do like “I Remember It Well” with Chavalier and Gingold)
10) Gladiator (this one I really don’t get; technically adept but as empty as a cistern in the desert)
11) Forrest Gump (a phenomenon when it came out–it even fooled me into liking it once upon a time–but now it just seems like a mean, unfair takedown of Summer of Love ideals, and a booster of being stupid; I’ll never watch it EVER again)
12) Crash (an average and not-well-thought-out criticism of racism; it’s here not because it beat BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but because it should have never been in the running, even though Dillon and Newton are very good in it)
13) Gentleman’s Agreement (I dunno…I just find it deadly dull)
14) Titanic (Great visuals, yes. But when your romantic leads seem like dolts, because of your doltish script, and in fact, in a cast of hundreds, only one person–Victor Garber–gives a more-than-decent performance, then something is definitely wrong)
15) Going My Way (I like some of the songs, and Barry Fitzgerald, but I’ve never been a big Bing Crosby booster; all I see is a child abuser when I look at him).

NOTE: Never seen CIMARRON, THE LIFE OF EMILE ZOLA or CAVALCADE, so they were left out of the running. There are many others I am not a fan of–THE APARTMENT, HAMLET, MRS. MINIVER, AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, BEN HUR, OUT OF AFRICA, DRIVING MISS DAISY, THE LAST EMPEROR, and THE ENGLISH PATIENT–but I can find in all something to at least understand why they won. As for the ones I haven’t mentioned (that is, the rest of the winners): I think they all have a legitimate claim to the top prize, and could passionately defend any one of them, even if, in most instances, they wouldn’t necessarily be the one I would vote for. I will say this: the only movies that have won Best Picture that actually DESERVED it were: Gone With The Wind, West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, The Godfather Part II (arguably), One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter, Unforgiven, Schindler’s List, and Million Dollar Baby. Yes, Million Dollar Baby–that film is still devastating, despite its perceived flaws (which aren’t flaws to me; man, if you lived here in the south, you KNOW some people like that Margo Martindale character).

I like Million Dollar Baby and think it’s a great film. So I’m not on board with bashing that one. I’m also not of the type that’s going to list films that are entertaining (to me) and which don’t deserve to win yet they’re OKAY anyway like…

Grand Hotel
The Sting
Rocky

I’m going to list 10 films that I don’t like in any way whatsoever…

Argo
The Artist
The King’s Speech
Slumdog
American Beauty
Driving Miss Daisy
Gigi
Around the World…
The Greatest Show….
You Can’t Take it With You

I prefer to think of this subject in terms of “least good” rather than “worst” simply because none of them I think is really bad, although in many cases one can cite movies that are better than what was ultimately chosen by the Academy as best. Sam, I notice you didn’t include The Sound of Music or Oliver! — I’d be tempted to include them not to mention Gigi. And while Crash didn’t deserve to win I still liked it despite all the criticism that’s been heaped upon it.

Different people use different criteria, which is the crux of it. It’s all about taste and which aspects of a film one chooses to acknowledge. Slumdog, for example, didn’t deserve all the accolades it received but I certainly enjoyed it quite a lot and had no problem when it was chosen though the bandwagon effect was nauseating. As much as I love The Artist, there are films that are better. Although The King’s Speech was quite enjoyable, it, too, has no business being #1 that year. And why isn’t Wings on the list?

Just last week Ang Lee was asked about this and his response was the best I’ve read, something along the lines of the Academy may not choose the most artistic but rather one that’s the most beloved for one reason or another.

Pierre—
That delineation is better indeed. I would never include the likes of OLIVER! nor THE SOUND OF MUSIC, as the former in my opinion is a fantastic film music with a magnificent score and a towering source, and the loving regard for the latter goes all the way back to childhood. I am less enamored of GIGI though, but would still resist from listing it as an all-time bad choice. But yes, “different strokes for different folks” and personal taste are always the overriding criteria. I have argued that at this site for several years now. I only get riled when anyone tries parlay that taste into some kind of definitive statement about a film’s quality. A good friend of mine once posed that a film review or any kind of review on art tells more about the person reviewing it than about the actual work being considered. How true. I agree with you on SLUMDOG being over-rewarded, and THE KING SPEECH was not near #1 either. However THE ARTIST is another story for me. That was a case of the best film winning for 2011. Loved Lee’s answer there!

Some interesting discussion here, but I was never much bugged by CRASH’s victory. I actually liked it better than BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (feel free to start the derision now!), but my choice for Best Picture that year was CAPOTE. I also don’t get the near-universal decision that CHICAGO is an undeserving Best Picture winner, but as I mentioned to someone on Facebook, I feel lately as I live in the Bizarro World – my opinions seem to be running in the polar opposite direction of most other film bloggers as of late.

Pat—
You can be sure I am NOT with any anti-CHICAGO clique. These sentiments again are being registered by the same people who don’t go in for movie musicals and the kind of emotion that emanates from this form. You are not in bizarro mode at all–the haters are! Ha!

I agree that Crash was one of the worse winners. It was so full of its own self importance and so preachy and ridiculous. Every time a minority person appeared some neanderthal racist would just coincidentally also be there. This movie was worse than those old ABC movies of the week in which we’d all learn a very special lesson. I can only imagine the reason this won was because the academy (voters)was never going to give its award to a Gay movie and wanted to save face by picking some other cause like racism.

Those I can’t accept winning:
1. Crash (2005) – I couldn’t even get through the whole movie, it was THAT bad and it made me fucking angry. ANY of the other nominees (Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich) would have been a much better choice. Crash shouldn’t have even been nominated.
2. Chariots of Fire (1981) – Three words: boring as shit. Better choices: On Golden Pond, Reds or Raiders of the Lost Ark.
3. Dances with Wolves (1990) – Goodfellas should have won hands down. Even The Godfather Part III would have been a better choice.
4. Out of Africa (1985) – The worst choice (and not to mention most racist) the Academy made in a year that they got 4 or 5 out of the top 6 winners wrong. The Color Purple and Ran FTW.
5. A Beautiful Mind (2001) – Another boring as shit entry. Fellowship of the Ring should have won this.
6. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) – This had no business winning over High Noon.
7. Around the World in 80 Days (1956) – The Ten Commandments should have won hands down.
8. Shakespeare in Love (1998) – Not as bad as I remember it, but it still shouldn’t have won over Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line.
9. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) – A fine film, but it should NOT have beaten Apocalypse Now or All That Jazz.
10. Ordinary People (1980) – This beat Raging Bull. I rest my case.

Top Clicks

Wonders in the Dark is a blog dedicated to the arts, especially film, theatre and music. An open forum is highly encouraged, as the site proctors are usually ready and able to engage with ongoing conversation.